Created by Yonatan Frimer.
To solve the mazes, find the entrances and exits, which are marked by the arrows. Then, make you way thru the maze while not going over any of the dark ink of the maze. How long did it take you?

Created by Yonatan Frimer.
To solve the mazes, find the entrances and exits, which are marked by the arrows. Then, make you way thru the maze while not going over any of the dark ink of the maze. How long did it take you?

Created by Yonatan Frimer.
To solve the mazes, find the entrances and exits, which are marked by the arrows. Then, make you way thru the maze while not going over any of the dark ink of the maze. How long did it take you?

Created by Yonatan Frimer.
To solve the mazes, find the entrances and exits, which are marked by the arrows. Then, make you way thru the maze while not going over any of the dark ink of the maze. How long did it take you?

Created by Yonatan Frimer.
To solve the mazes, find the entrances and exits, which are marked by the arrows. Then, make you way thru the maze while not going over any of the dark ink of the maze. How long did it take you?

// <![CDATA[
showUSloc=(checkLocale('uk')||checkLocale('au'));document.writeln(showUSloc ? 'US, ‘ : ”);
// ]]> November 18, 2009 – Now this is a little more like it. Up until now, the 200 Nintendo Point price range has been the dumping ground for DSiWare — being able to download new games for just two dollars sounded promising, but the selection of titles available at that price has been just awful. Useless clock and calculator apps, generic sudoku packs and cut-up pieces of old first-party cartridge games have been the only things available there — nothing to get excited about, at all.

Robot Rescue, though, is a little more like it. This is, finally, a full and compelling game design offered for just two bucks — and you get a lot for your money. It’s a tile-based puzzle game where, in the tradition of past classics like Adventures of Lolo, you have to guide a happy-go-lucky hero out of a set of perplexing mazes. Unlike Lolo, though, the robot needing rescue here isn’t alone.

You control multiple machines simultaneously in Robot Rescue. Two, three, four or even as many as thirty different robots are under your command all at once, in each of the 45 different labyrinthine levels contained herein. You turn your DSi up on its side, to set up a “book style” view of each two-screen-wide stage. You assess the starting positions of your bots, planning your first move. Then you push a direction on the D-Pad — up, down, left or right. And all the robots move in the way you chose, at the same time.

Holding the DSi in sideways “book style” gives you double-wide mazes. (Don’t get tripped up by the divide in the middle, though.)

It’s a simple concept that makes for a very fun, brainteasing experience for fans of logic puzzlers — I admit that games like this are exactly my style, as coming up with a strategy of survival and then executing it flawlessly can be immensely satisfying. Robot Rescue is particularly rewarding in that way — because you can’t make any mistakes. One errant command or lapse of focus, and one or more of your bots is getting blown to bits.

That happens courtesy of the game’s many obstacles and hazards. There are land mines that explode your bots on contact. There are exposed electrical wires that can fry their circuits. There are red and yellow doors that can switch on and off — not dangerous by default, but if you accidentally press a switch while a bot’s still standing in a doorway, slam. Crushed. Dead.

So you have to make skillful use of what little open space and unharmful walls are provided to you, in order to maneuver each machine into a safe position relative to all the other robots and get them to the exit. For example, you may have two robots moving to the right together, one tile at a time — locked into the same synchronous rhythm. If you make one of them run into a wall, though, while the second still has open space in front of him, you can change their relative position — input another “right” command and the guy already hitting the wall won’t move, but his buddy will. You get the idea. Then throw conveyor belts, teleporters, glue spots on the floor and cloning devices into the mix and you’ve got quite an interesting puzzler indeed.

Robot Rescue has 45 different levels stretched across three difficulties — you start off with 15 Easy, move on to 15 Medium and finish with 15 Hard. Those challenge ratings are on target, too — the early going is very simple, as the first stages serve as tutorials to teach you the game. After that, though, you’re on your own — and it gets to be truly tough. You’ll have at least a couple of hours’ worth of puzzling out the solutions to all of the included levels here, and after that all 45 will be unlocked for free play. Which is nice, since several of the stages can be solved in different ways — you can go back and try alternate strategies. (There’s more than one way to rescue a robot.)

Closing Comments
All together, Robot Rescue is an impressive package for just two bucks — it’s compelling, it looks good and it’s highly rewarding when you figure out the solution to its particularly tough puzzles. It’s also a great value at that price, offering two to three hours’ worth of action for your 200 pennies. When you look again at the competition available at that same price level on DSiWare, it’s no contest — this is the first real, original game design to arrive at that price point. It finally feels like you’re getting an actual game for once, and not just a sparkle enhancement for your system’s camera, or some recycled chunk of an old WarioWare release.

So pick up Robot Rescue with my full recommendation, as I’d be shocked if anyone didn’t feel like they got their money’s worth here when it’s just two dollars. The game, too, was based on an original PC design from a few year’s back — and there was also a Robot Rescue 2 created then, as well. So jump on here, toss a couple bucks toward publisher Teyon, and convince them to bring over that sequel as well — because I want some more robots to rescue.

This column finds itself in the laboratory this morning with controlled test conditions available to assess the commentary rodentia. This experiment models AMP’s bid for Axa APH.

Via Business Day, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age release two of their business snufflers into the Axa maze. The first is Ian Verrender who takes a strongly local angle, coloured with dialect. The piece is a potted history of AMP and can be summed up in a single sentence from the final paragraph: “Craig Dunn [AMP CEO] has cast the die. Where there were six – the big four with the big two insurers – there now is likely to be just five.” This is typical Verrender – too often populist and simplistic. He has taken an early wrong turn.

The second piece is by Malcolm Maiden, who shuffles past Verrender into fresh corridors and insights including some interesting AMP data. “AMP is therefore valuing the Australian and New Zealand wealth management and insurance operations it wants to keep at $4 billion … For that price it will double its tied planner sales force, increase its access to independent planners seven-fold, boost its risk insurance market share from 9.1 per cent to 17.5 per cent, its share of superannuation assets under management from 5.8 percentage points to 23.6 per cent, and its share of retirement income generating assets by 6.2 percentage points to 17.6 per cent.” Ultimately however, the Maiden mouse grows tired and rests mid-corridor with his contention that “The banks will also look at both AMP and AXA APH, and AMP shares edged up on speculation that Westpac would look hardest.”

Overtaking Maiden, John Durie of The Australian sees this as unlikely: “… given it has taken [bank] boards of directors six months to pull their head out of the sandstorm created by the financial crisis, it would be a brave board indeed to go doubling up in this market ahead of a raft of regulatory changes next year.” Ominously, the muscular and hirsute Durie peers down the corridor and declares that “The battle has just begun, the stockmarket is enjoying the return of takeover deals, but it remains to be seen whether Axa’s Allert can get anywhere close to creating price tension in this deal.”

However, the process of creating that price tension was summed up brilliantly yesterday by Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator. The depilated and enigmatic sire of Australian business critters bounds past his juniors with an assessment of the deal process that made this observer’s white coat flap around his ears. “Step one: First you put in a low bid with all sorts of qualifications and nasties. Step two: It is of course rejected by the target board but then all the hedge funds and punters plough in and buy the stock discovering the level at which institutional shareholders will sell. Step three: The hedge funds use their mates in the print press to attack the defending board. All sorts of scoops are arranged. Step four: Then the bid is lifted to a level that gives the hedge funds a profit and all the nasty qualifications are removed. The press warns shareholders that the price will drop if the bidders withdraw because all the hedge funds and other speculators will sell their stock. Step five: The board gives in.”

And right on cue, The Australian’s second mouse into the maze is Matthew Stevens. Without so much as a baulk, a murine Stevens goes for the cheese and hurtles straight into the trap. According to Stevens, “The chairman of Axa Asia-Pacific Holdings had been warned early on Friday that an offer was probably heading his company’s way … Midnight came and went and Allert finally retired without confirmation of an offer but still anticipated a long, difficult weekend … He woke at 6am on Saturday morning to the offer (it lobbed finally at 3am).” Stevens seems to be signalling that he has talked to Allert. But if so, why not say so? The problem with zig-zagging around the source is that as his story develops a positive tone, this column can’t help wondering whose analysis is being offered: “That $1.3bn or so more than consensus underlines an Axa APH Asian success story that has been more than 20 years in the making. It is making very good money in Hong Kong, starting to in South-East Asia and is still in the capital-intensive build-up stage in China and India…” Is Stevens having his coat stroked and being used?

Two other commentators pursue less flashy but more trustworthy routes. Stephen Bartholomeusz of Business Spectator and Bryan Frith of The Australian bar entry to the labyrinth and instead provide analysis of the test itself. Bartholomeusz looks into the ‘phoney war’ created by the “scheme of arrangement” around the Axa and Transurban bids. Bartholomeusz concludes that “It is unlikely either will mount a conventional hostile offer because the pension funds need 100 per cent of Transurban to take it out of the listed environment and AMP and AXA SA need AMP to achieve 100 per cent of AXA APH before they can carve it up and enable AMP to access the synergies … That gives the target boards considerable negotiating leverage”. Frith, on the other hand, suggests “At issue is whether AMP should have been required to disclose yesterday the full details of a “consortium deed” and an “exclusivity arrangement”, which the two companies have entered into, to ensure an informed market.” Both pieces are worth reading.

Finally, bringing up the rear, with no shame nor great pace either, is The Australian Financial Review’s Alan Jury, writing as Chanticleer, with his conclusion that “the game’s afoot and, as seems to happen more and more these days, no one has actually said anything other than “‘the price isn’t right’”.

Elsewhere today: the AFR editorial weighs in against the CPRS and in favour of nuclear power; in AFR op-eds, Tony Harris looks at the challenge facing Barry O’Farrell in reforming NSW politicised public service; and Alan Anderson argues for liberalisation of local government planning. Michael Stutchbury of The Australian quotes David Hale and his contention that a strong US recovery will cause major pain to Australia through high interest rates.

David Llewellyn-Smith is the co-founder and former publisher of The Diplomat magazine. He runs a media business and communications consultancy in Melbourne and co-authored The Great Crash Of 2008 with Ross Garnaut.

I am a 22-year-old Jewish woman in my senior year at university. A year ago I met a great guy and we have been dating steadily ever since. (He is 23 and has already graduated.) Originally, we did not start off dating for marriage, but as the months passed and our courtship has deepened, we now discuss marriage openly and regularly (he was the first one to bring it up.)

We both get along well with each others’ families, but the problem is that neither of our parents support us getting married in the near future — until we are at least in our mid-to-late 20s, as our parents were when they got married.

At the moment, we’re dating over a long distance, although after I graduate we intend to move to the same city. In the meantime it is quite frustrating that we can’t spend more time together and I’m afraid it’s going to turn things stale.

My question is: When should we get married or engaged? I’m not quite ready to take on that huge, lifelong commitment of the awesome role of “wife,” as well as planning a wedding and dealing with unsupportive family members who think I am too young to get married. Nonetheless we are devoted to each other and would very much like to get married, just not right now.

When is the “right time” to get married? And for the immediate future, what do you think is a good “next step”?

Sharon

Dear Sharon,

This is a common dilemma that young couples face when they start dating before they feel ready for marriage. They may be college students, or just launching into a world of adult jobs and responsibilities, or even older teens who started to date in high school. When they realize this is serious enough to imagine spending the rest of their lives together, they want to move to a deeper level — and this creates a tremendous amount of pressure. It seems that marriage should be the next step, but they wonder how they can get married if they still have to finish college, or have just landed their first job and have no money to start a life with, or have no idea what they want to do with their life, or aren’t ready for adult responsibilities, or feel the need to accomplish a particular goal before making such a commitment, or are encountering strong parental opposition to the idea.

This is indeed a predicament. When two people feel right for each other and see themselves building a future together, it’s very difficult to put that future on hold. They want to take the other person into consideration when planning certain aspects of their lives, but there aren’t strong enough ties for them to expect the other person to do the same. They want to share more life experiences, but they’re separated by distance or time. And for those who recognize the importance of delaying physical intimacy until marriage, there is an additional source of pressure.

Western culture sees dating as a form of social interaction.

The only sure-fire way to avoid this predicament is… to not start dating until you’re ready for marriage. Of course, the trend in society is not to follow this practice (and in your case it is already after the fact). Western culture sees dating as a form of social interaction that begins in adolescence, and many people don’t even consider dating as a way to meet their future spouse for a decade or two… if at all. Contemporary culture considers marriage as one of several acceptable lifestyle choices, and may even discourage young marriages because they believe that it stands in the way of a person’s ability to grow, self-actualize and achieve fulfillment.

This is not the Jewish view. Judaism views marriage as one of life’s most important goals, as the very path to self-fulfillment. Marriage can enhance one’s ability to obtain an education, establish economic security, advance in a career, and achieve one’s potential.

But what about the situation you now face?

We don’t have an easy solution, but we can offer a few suggestions that have worked for others. The first is to use the current geographic distance between you as an advantage. The fact that you can’t see each other so often can slow down the momentum of your courtship, and in your case this is a good thing. Don’t confuse your strong wish to see each other, with the need to move your connection to a higher level. When you’re able to be together, cherish the opportunity and focus on the moment.

Our second suggestion is to give yourselves some sort of time frame to help feel that you are making progress toward the goal of marriage. Otherwise, the frustration that inevitably comes when two people need to and want to deepen their relationship, but can’t, can eat away at the foundation of that relationship. That’s why we don’t believe it’s a good idea for you to wait the number of years your parents seem to want you to wait. Instead, we encourage you to work toward being ready to marry in a much shorter time frame that you can all be comfortable with.

In order to figure out what that time frame should be, you’ll need to clarify your goals and expectations for the future. A few months before you are due to graduate, you should each separately give some thought as to where you, as individuals, see yourselves in the next six months, one year and five years. Think in terms of all aspects: education, career, religious growth, economic situation, lifestyle, social and family life. Are your current stated goals what you really want, or what someone else wants for you? How do you see yourself getting there?

Also, think about what exactly you feel you must achieve or grow into before you are ready for marriage. What is stopping you from pursuing this goal right now? Can you make a plan to accelerate the process? What will happen if you decide to get married before you’ve achieved this goal — can you complete it while you are married?

Your parents are more likely to support a mature decision.

When each of you has a clear idea of your goals and expectations, get together to discuss them. See how well your individual aspirations fit together, and talk about different ways you can compromise your differences. Give yourselves reasonable timetables for any of the goals you feel you must meet before marriage. Then, sit down with each set of parents to discuss your desire to marry and explain how you’ve carefully thought through a strategy to enable you to marry in the foreseeable future. Even though your parents may have their own ideas, they’re more likely to support your decision when they see the mature and forward-looking way that you are implementing it.

Our general rule is that when two people feel they are right for each other, they should embark upon their life together as soon as is practically possible. When two people know where this is headed, they need to deepen the relationship and make a commitment to each other. If they delay doing so for too long, the bond between them is likely to erode. That’s why we encourage you to work together toward meeting your pre-marriage goals so that you can become engaged within a reasonable period of time.

We also encourage you not to stretch the engagement period for a year or more, as some couples do. You’d be surprised how many couples are able to plan a wedding and select and furnish a place to live in a matter of a few months. Many aspects of engagement are wonderful, but others can be stressful, and we’ve seen that shorter engagements tend to be less stressful.

We hope that our suggestions help you resolve your dilemma,

Rosie & Sherry

Want some mazes that are a bit easier to solve than dating? Check out these:

I drew this maze while I was still in hospital, about a month before I got out. It’s of a team of well trained, well dressed monkeys serving hors devours at a museum, with art mimics with other monkeys in the art. Gotta love those pain killers they where giving me 🙂